Is the United States Under a Threat of a Nuclear Attack?At a time when the United States Administration under President Obama is taking a relook at the country’s nuclear strategy it would be interesting to evaluate some of the key aspects of its concerns emanating from   around the world. Does the United States perceive of a threat that the country will be under a nuclear attack? No one can say without doubt that the chances are negligible. The risk of a nuclear attack on the United States continues to be possibility. However unlike the era of the cold war, the dynamics of global politics has changed, so has the risk assessment. Read this article on Associated Content

The article states that whereas, in 1963, four of the top five in the UPSC (Civil Service) entrance exams opted for the Indian Foreign Service from 2005 to 08 almost no one from the top 20 joined the IFS.

The article brings to light some very interesting facts and figures. The articles points out that by the 90s the IFS has finally completely fell off its perch. The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) was now been increasingly seen as one of the the real power. Understandably, it has been the economic reforms which led to a sudden spurt in the economy and the growth of the IAS as a preferred career choice among Civil Service aspirants.

The fighting is being reported by both American and Taliban sources. According to one American source, reports of an imminent attack began circulating on Jan. 17. Heavy fighting is being reported at multiple locations, apparently focused around the Serena Hotel. The hotel, which is frequented by foreign journalists and government officials, has been attacked in the past.

According to the Taliban, 20 suicide bombers are taking part in the attack. They claim the Presidential Palace, Ministries of Justice, Finance, Mines and Industry are among the targets. There are reports of casualties, but numbers and locations are unclear.

It was the worst attack on the city in nearly a year. Gunfire and loud explosions could be heard across the capital and a huge column of smoke was pouring out of a shopping centre that was at the heart of the attacks.

The American media ensured that the words of its President where heard around the world. As nations prepared to see the end of global terrorism, the effort turned out to be a damp squib.

———————–

The attack on the bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team is brutal and reprehensible. It is just the latest. That Pakistan has become a sanctuary and safe haven for all kinds of sundry terrorist groups has become quite clear by now to all sensible people. What is of utmost priority at this moment is to protect not just cricket, but entire South Asia, including Pakistan.

Sadly, the central discourse after the attack was on whether Pakistan is safe for cricket in future. There were ‘concerns’ over the future of the World Cup to be held in 2011.

The issue is not just about cricket, it is a pure and simple case of terrorism; the degeneration of Pakistan into a rogue State. However much the ‘candle-lightwalahs’ may resent it, Pakistan must be shunned completely until it cleanses its entire system and purges the last terrorist from its soil.

Ignorant politicians declared that the last time sportsmen were attacked was during the Munich Olympics in 1972. They forget that only a few years ago there was a suicide bomb attack outside the hotel in Islamabad in which the New Zealand  cricketers were staying. Although the cricketers escaped unhurt, scores died in that attack. In fact it was in that climate of terror that the tour of the Indian cricket team to Pakistan had to be deferred by several months by the then National Democratic Alliance government.

While the details about the perpetrators of this attack will only be known after the investigations, one thing is clear: the terrorists wanted to send a message out to the world that they are in control in Pakistan. The nexus between the Pakistan-based terrorist groups like the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka dates back to early 1990s, when they were exchanging weapons for narcotics.

The Sri Lanka government’s determined efforts to crush the LTTE can be a sufficient reason for the attack on the Sri Lankan team as these outfits thrive on each other’s support, especially since the LTTE was a major source of funding through the narco-trail for the jihadi groups.

In fact with a non-functional government at the helm in Pakistan, in order for the truth behind this attack to come out, the Sri Lankan government must demand direct participation in the probe.

The LTTE had close links with many South Asian terror groups. Those Indian politicians who go all out to please pro-LTTE groups in India must not forget that it was the same LTTE which was equipping Indian terror outfits like the Maoists and the United Liberation Front of Asom.

India had responded appropriately by calling for dismantling the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. It needs to be proactive in isolating and pressuring Pakistan because the biggest victim of a ‘rogue Pakistan’ will be India.

The Western powers are always driven by their own self-interest rather than any serious concern for curbing terror. We hear theories emanating from Western ‘experts’ that the Talibanisation of Pakistan is a local phenomenon and should be left to the local forces to tackle. In fact the Swat agreement was sought to be justified with the same argument. In other words, what the West wants is a gentleman’s agreement with the Taliban — ‘You take South Asia; but don’t come to Europe and America’.

It is time all the countries in the South Asian region — especially democracies like India and Sri Lanka — came together to exert pressure on Pakistan to end terrorism.

The report stresses the link between environment and development and calls for urgent action on climate change. Arguably, few regions in the world are more at risk from climate change in terms of adverse impact on the poor than South Asia and the region faces a large potential health risk from climate change through increased malnutrition, diarrhea, and malaria.
Key findings of the Report are: –

South Asia is expected to contribute the most to global poverty reduction in the next
South Asia is likely to fall seriously short in some areas, including primary education, gender parity in tertiary education, and child mortality goals
South Asia has the world’s highest incid ence of child malnutrition and the child malnutrition rate in India is double the African average.

The origin of nationhood can actually be deduced from its definition. History is evidence of the fact that “nation” has had its existence even long before the first “religion”. Infact in most occassions religion has been more of an offshoot of a nation.

The most critical aspect of the nation-building process is communication. The ability of people the actually speak and be understood. Given this hypothesis the best environment for nation-bulding occurs when people live in geographical proximity to each other. Having said that it is important that we actually view this hypothesis in the context of modern day nations. One of the best case in point is that of India and Pakistan. Two nations actually created on the basis of religious identity. The supporters of the theory were well convinced of the fact that India prior of 1947 was not actually one but two nations rolled into one. For them two nations defined by religion who could not actually co-exist. However the whole idea of two nations on the basis of religion was demolised with the creation of Bangladesh.

A more recent example from India is that of the Shiv Sena. The Shiv Sena survived and flourished on its regionalistic and lingualistic propositions for a major part of its existence. But the party’s attempts to marry the lingo-regionalistic philosophy of its orign with its desire to represent a larger audience on socio-religious grounds leaves its support base confused.

So are people who are still clinging to the idea of defining nationalistic identities on the basis of religion wasting their time. Maybe yes. Because history has no examples to prove otherwise.

An article in the Times of India recently outlined the approach that India should adopt in its handling of Africa. Well-timed for the Summit the article pointed out that although compared to the massive Chinese investment in African infrastructure and capacity building, India comes a far second, yet, India has some comparative advantages over China vis-a-vis Africa. Among the advantages that the article listed are the more than 2.5 million persons of Indian origin (PIO) in the continent, people who have played a major role in the freedom movement of these countries. Agreeably, the article points out that this is a heritage which has no Chinese equivalent. Secondly, India’s foreign policy in Africa has always been more “principled and less opportunistic”. This, the article says is partly explained by the presence of PIOs in Africa and their cultural and economic links with India.

However, the geopolitical dynamics of the African continent has a different story to say. In many of these countries, Indians are looked upon with hate. There have been various instances of violence that has been reported against people of Indian origin. These violent acts instigated or otherwise have nevertheless opened up old wounds. Indians, rightly or wrongly, are looked upon as the new class of oppressors. This has actually disturbed the years of integration that has occurred.

Viewed in this context the Chinese investments particularly those that bring about large scale infrastructure development have given a new sense of hope to the local population. The long deprived people of Africa are in much more desperate need of trade, investment, and economic growth and the resultant rise in living standards which these are expected to bring. The rich natural resources of the continent are sufficient to make these countries count among the richest in the world. Whereas, Chinese entrepreneurs, supported by their government in lure for natural resources, have been making massive investments in infrastructure development in Africa, much to the chagrin of the west; Indians, given their long history in the continent, on the other hand, are viewed as profit mongers. India thus needs to do much more than merely sing the old tune of cultural bonding. It is time now for affirmative action. As Joseph Kabila Kabange, President of the Democratic Republic of Congo, in an apparent reference to the international attention to the natural resources-rich continent, pointed out at the Summit, that Africa needed “concrete action” and not mere assurances for developing the region. This reveals the pragmatism with which the African have now begun to approach the outside world.

And as a closing note much cannot be read into African support to India’s claim for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council – China is not in the race after all.